J.I. Case 1694 or Renault 133-14 TX?

Which should you choose?

On performance, every comparable figure that differs favours the Renault 133-14 TX: three-point lift.

  • The Renault 133-14 TX suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 21% (750 kg / 1,653 lb) more three-point lift.

Generated by rule set compare@4 from the figures on the side-by-side table, allowed by route “the same stated configuration”. Measured figures are compared only with measured, claimed only with claimed, at the same test condition; differences within each figure’s tolerance are not called.

What decides it, question by question?

Buyer questions for J.I. Case 1694 and Renault 133-14 TX, with the call on each
Question1694133-14 TXCall
Which puts more power through the PTO shaft?73.8 kW (99.0 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 1694”74.1 kW (99.4 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 133-14 TS/TX R7932”EvenEven on power at the PTO shaft (both power at the PTO, claimed): the difference is under the 10% threshold for claimed figures, too small to call.
Which turns a litre of fuel into more work at the shaft?No figureNo call on fuel efficiency at the shaft: no figure on record for the 1694 and the 133-14 TX.
Which pulls harder at the drawbar?No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 1694 and the 133-14 TX.
Which pumps more oil for implements?39.4 L/min (10.4 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 133-14 TS/TX R7932”No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the 1694.
Which lifts more on the three-point hitch?3,630 kg (8,003 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 1694”4,380 kg (9,656 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 133-14 TS/TX R7932”AheadThe Renault 133-14 TX has 21% more lift (750 kg / 1,653 lb) than the J.I. Case 1694 (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source).
Which is heavier, for traction?4,350 kg (9,590 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 1694”5,570 kg (12,280 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 133-14 TS/TX R7932”Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Renault 133-14 TX is 28% heavier (1,220 kg / 2,690 lb) than the J.I. Case 1694 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
Which may carry more ballast and load?No figureNo call on maximum permissible mass: no figure on record for the 1694 and the 133-14 TX.
Which has the wider choice of gears?12Traktorenlexikon, “Case 1694”12Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 133-14 TS/TX R7932”EvenEven on forward gears (both forward gears, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 25% threshold, too small to call.
Which offers a creeper range?No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the 1694 and the 133-14 TX.
Which is faster on the road?30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 1694”25 km/h (15.5 mph) to 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 133-14 TS/TX R7932”EvenEven on top speed (both top speed forward, as stated by the source): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap.
Which offers more PTO speeds?540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Case 1694”540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Renault 133-14 TS/TX R7932”EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540, 1000 rpm).
Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive?No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 1694 and the 133-14 TX.
Which drives on both axles?4WDTraktorenlexikon, “Case 1694”4WDTraktorenlexikon, “Renault 133-14 TS/TX R7932”EvenEven on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive.
Which is newer, and what about parts?1984–19851981–1986EvenSame era: production began within 5 years of each other. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.

What does this mean in plain words?

  • The Renault 133-14 TX has 21% more lift (750 kg / 1,653 lb) than the J.I. Case 1694 (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source).
  • The Renault 133-14 TX is 28% heavier (1,220 kg / 2,690 lb) than the J.I. Case 1694 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
  • Even on power at the PTO shaft (both power at the PTO, claimed): the difference is under the 10% threshold for claimed figures, too small to call.
  • Even on forward gears (both forward gears, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 25% threshold, too small to call.
  • Even on top speed (both top speed forward, as stated by the source): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap.
  • Even on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540, 1000 rpm).
  • Even on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive.
  • Same era: production began within 5 years of each other. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
  • No figure on record for every machine, so no call on: fuel efficiency at the shaft, drawbar power, hydraulic flow, maximum permissible mass, a creeper range and PTO independence.

← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources